Sensitivity of marine-reserve design to the spatial resolution of socioeconomic data

Socioeconomic considerations should have an important place in reserve design, Systematic reserve-selection tools allow simultaneous optimization for ecological objectives while minimizing costs but are seldom used to incorporate socioeconomic costs in the reserve-design process. The sensitivity of this process to biodiversity data resolution has been studied widely but the issue of socioeconomic data resolution has not previously been considered. We therefore designed marine reserves for biodiversity conservation with the constraint of minimizing commercial fishing revenue losses and investigated how economic data resolution affected the results. Incorporating coarse-resolution economic data from official statistics generated reserves that were only marginally less costly to the fishery than those designed with no attempt to minimize economic impacts. An intensive survey yielded fine-resolution data that, when incorporated in the design process, substantially reduced predicted fishery losses. Such an approach could help minimize fisher displacement because the least profitable grounds are selected for the reserve. Other work has shown that low-resolution biodiversity data can lead to underestimation of the conservation value of some sites, and a risk of overlooking the most valuable areas, and we have similarly shown that low-resolution economic data can cause underestimation of the profitability of some sites and a risk of inadvertently including these in the reserve. Detailed socioeconomic data are therefore an essential input for the design of cost-effective reserve networks.

The Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) as a support tool for protected area planning, financing and reporting

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission has developed, in consultation with many partners, the DOPA as a global reference information system to support decision making on protected areas (PAs) and biodiversity conservation. The DOPA brings together the World Database on Protected Areas with other reference datasets on species, habitats, ecoregions, threats and pressures, to deliver critical indicators at country level and PA level that can inform gap analyses, PA planning and reporting. These indicators are especially relevant to Aichi Targets 11 and 12, and have recently contributed to CBD country dossiers and capacity building on these targets. DOPA also includes eConservation, a new module that provides a means to share and search information on conservation projects, and thus allows users to see “who is doing what where”. So far over 5000 projects from the World Bank, GEF, CEPF, EU LIFE Programme, CBD LifeWeb Initiative and others have been included, and these projects can be searched in an interactive mapping interface based on criteria such as location, objectives, timeframe, budget, the organizations involved, target species etc. This seminar will provide an introduction to DOPA and eConservation, highlight how these services are used by the CBD and others, and include ample time for discussion.

Exploring the applicability of biological and socioeconomic tools in developing EAFM plans for data absent areas : Spinner dolphin EAFM for Kalpitiya, Sri Lanka

Acknowledgements University of Aberdeen, UK and Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystems (BOBLME) project are acknowledged for partial funding of this research.

Protected Areas' Impacts on Brazilian Amazon Deforestation: Examining Conservation-Development Interactions to Inform Planning.

Protected areas are the leading forest conservation policy for species and ecoservices goals and they may feature in climate policy if countries with tropical forest rely on familiar tools. For Brazil's Legal Amazon, we estimate the average impact of protection upon deforestation and show how protected areas' forest impacts vary significantly with development pressure. We use matching, i.e., comparisons that are apples-to-apples in observed land characteristics, to address the fact that protected areas (PAs) tend to be located on lands facing less pressure. Correcting for that location bias lowers our estimates of PAs' forest impacts by roughly half. Further, it reveals significant variation in PA impacts along development-related dimensions: for example, the PAs that are closer to roads and the PAs closer to cities have higher impact. Planners have multiple conservation and development goals, and are constrained by cost, yet still conservation planning should reflect what our results imply about future impacts of PAs.